Share this:

Keeping my corner of the Interwebs junk news-free

One of the best things I’ve ever done is ban alleged news stories put out by less than reputable sources from the lively and sometimes heated political discussions that often break out under a column I’ve written and posted to my Facebook page.

I don’t know why it didn’t occur to me to do this before.

Don’t misunderstand, I love a good argument. I don’t mind losing one or having my mind changed or my views altered. I don’t even mind insults. I get a lot of those. I’ve written my opinion for a living for 30 years. You can’t call me anything I haven’t been called before. Someone insulting you usually means you’re winning the debate.

In the case of my Facebook feed, winning isn’t the point, of course. To me, the debate itself is the point. Honest debate is a healthy thing. I look at these little Facebook debates – which lately have all been about Trump and the Tea Party, formerly known as the Republican Party – as a way to test my thinking. Weak arguments based on emotion alone are always rightly called out by readers (showing how smart you are) which forces me to either bolster them with facts or morals or abandon them altogether.

Either way, it’s a net positive.

Like everyone else, though, I didn’t recognize how quickly information in America was changing and what an impact it would have. In the past, everyone got their news from the same newspapers, TV or radio. That was a good thing because believe it or not the vast majority of journalists played news down the center, like it should be, the result being news consumers who more or less agreed on the same set of facts.

The Internet – for all the good it has done – changed all that. Suddenly, everyone with an angle to push (including the Russians) realized, hey, I can put out my own set of facts, disguise it as news, and people will swallow it whole.

Which they did. You’ve probably wondered what happened to that friend or relative who suddenly began to believe things that clearly weren’t true. Well, it’s likely they started believing opinions disguised as “facts.” No wonder you can’t agree with them anymore — they’re working from a different set of facts. It’s like trying to play Monopoly where everyone has their own set of rules.

Well, my little rule change is my way to combat that. If you want to share your opinion on my Facebook page or website, by all means do so, even if you’re a crackpot. I won’t squelch you. But if you try to bolster your opinion – as people often do – by posting a link to a news source, it has to come from an established, trusted news source. If not, I hit the delete button.

I realize that’s a bit nebulous. What’s established and trusted? Well, in my mind, it’s an outlet I’ve heard of and can check out – for instance, the networks, newspapers, respectable news websites that don’t mix opinion with news the way CNN does. I don’t care if it supports my views or not. Post away. (For a rough guide, see the chart at top) I also don’t mind if you post links to opinion pieces – as long as it’s clear that’s what it is.

The great danger to America is not that we have differing opinions on the same news. It’s that no one agrees on what the facts are anymore. I submit that the blurring of the line that used to separate news and opinion is to blame.

I’m redrawing it on my little corner of the Interwebs. I encourage you to do the same.

Related

Comments

“If you want to share your opinion on my Facebook page or website, by all means do so, even if you’re a crackpot. I won’t squelch you. ”

You recently banned a decorated Naval Veteran named Dale Harris from posting comments on your Facebook articles due to the fact he is a conservative and did a great job countermanding your false claims with documented facts.

“Documented Alternative Facts” are not facts. Sarah Huckbee Sanders would say it is highly inapproporiate to question military people. That would be a fact, if we were in North Korea. This is America. Even highly decorated military veterans can be questioned or blocked for being abusive trolls. Do you think differently? Do you think maybe the country should be run by the military? If so, how very American of you.

Honestly, legit media should not be airing Huckabee’s press conferences. First of all, they’re not newsworthy. Very few press briefings like that are. Second, she flat out lies. The only value in covering it is so people can see the lies. But covering it also gives it soft cred to many.

I most certainly did not drop him from Facebook because he’s conservative. I’ve only ever banned two or three people – and it was for being abusive of other posters or (and I think this was the case for Dale – I can’t recall for sure) putting words in my mouth then not retracting when I called him on it. I won’t stand for that. You wouldn’t either. For instance, if I wrote Working Dad loves my opinions, I suspect that might annoy you. Yes?

As you already know, Dale can’t send you an instant message because YOU BLOCKED HIM. That means his messages can’t get through to you as well as FB article postings.

But along these lines, why does a decorated, retired, naval officer need to grovel and seek your permission to disagree with your wrongful ideals? Personally I think he rates far higher than needing a permission slip from yourself.

Face it Andy – You ban people who disagree with you. You have done it many times, on many internet based discussion forums and articles. Your original statement claiming otherwise is dishonest.

He can always write a note here. And I’ll face nothing. I’ve blocked 2-3 on FB, one or two here. I think the same folks for the same reason. At MLive, blocking people wasn’t within my power. And I’m not on “many internet based forum and articles.” I write for me and for a few papers, none of which grant me the power to block anything. Sorry to disappoint you but truth is truth. You’re showing how truly little you know about the writing world.

I have a better idea Andy. You go to your profile list of people that you have blocked. (Possibly long) Search for Dale Harris. Unblock him. Send him an IM stating that in the name of open discussion, you have corrected your previous error in judgement.

Thank you Andy for providing the exact evidence that proves you clearly lied in this statement.

“If you want to share your opinion on my Facebook page or website, by all means do so, even if you’re a crackpot. I won’t squelch you. ”

Decorated Naval Officer Dale Harris (retired) was never abusive to you. He simply defeated your opinion with facts and documentation. You can’t handle it when conservatives defeat you in the arena of ideas.

I have friends Andy that no longer listen to the national news networks like CBS, ABC or NBC. The thing that bothers me is that they are successful and intelligent people. They believe the networks are biased and therefor unreliable. They are brainwashed to the point that they don’t see a lie as a lie. I don’t bother discussing politics with them because they lack facts that back their convictions. What I worry about is what it will take for them to trust mainstream news.

Great idea.
I’ve insulted plenty of alt. right wingers. They aren’t winning any arguments, not even close.
I recently learned that The Wall Street Journal is owned by Roger Murdoch, CEO of Fox News. It is no longer reputable in my book.

I am not a Facebook fan or do I have an account. My wife does and some of the things she reads to me that people believe are factual are outrageous. Some people have lost all common sense. I have a hard time believing any news source in this day and age. Most of the press hate trump with good reason I should add, but if people would just think for themselves once in a while maybe you could really figure out if it’s fact or fiction.

Jims, that’s not true. Don’t make the mistake of taking legitimate commentary (opinion) on those sites and in those papers – which is perfectly OK as long as it’s labeled or clear that’s what it is – for news. They’re not the same. Real journalists stick to facts and try to mix in a balance of opposing views by asking them their opinion.

Then you must not be a journalist as many times you are a columnist and only voice your opinions. Make up your mind. Which are you? What are these major newspapers that find your facts/opinions worthy of printing?

Still, I’ve been a columnist since about 1987. Where have you been? (And yes, at times, I’m a journalist, in that I report objectively on subjects. But there’s no pretense on my website that I’m doing anything about commentary. I’m astonished at the Tea Party’s inability to distinguish between news and opinion. I’m gonna have to do an opinion column on that soon, so thank you.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I for one am so fed up with all these so called “ news sources” and people who believe this crap! The chart is excellent to let me know who is reputable and who is not.

I want to support Tommy B’s opinion, though perhaps in a kinder, gentler way. I signed up to read the Andy Heller column. I didn’t sign up to read Working Dads opinion, and frankly, I don’t like the tone of it. It’s disrespectful and generally includes lots of name-calling but nothing of substance. I’ve been reading Andy for years, and consider him an old friend. That doesn’t mean I always agree, though mostly I do, and he says ideas that get me thinking. I like the conversations I have with him, even when many of them are just in my own head. And I would feel welcome to disagree with him, as I believe he loves a good discussion. You’ve got my vote to ditch the likes of Working Dad ( and boy am I glad he’s not my Dad!) Let him start his own column – somewhere else!

Following the comments in today’s column is quite interesting.
Working Dad accuses Andrew of blocking a retired nay vet. Working Dad says vet was not hostile or making nasty remarks about Andrew. Andrew says that navy vet was rude. I do not remember reading the remarks of the navy vet, so I cannot comment on that action.
I must say though Andrew does allow differing opinions to be posted on this site. If Fred, Jim says, Tommy B. says, Shelly and maybe Teddy Luba would not allow such views if they were in charge of this site, they would ban anybody who did not hold their point of view.
Fred says that Sarah Huckabee Saunders would say it is highly inappropriate to question military people. Did Sarah Huckabee Saunders say such a thing? I am doubtful of that claim. That is because tom says used to work “would” . The word would is not an definite word. It is a word that can have a wish-washy meaning.
Tommy B’s comment at 3:39 p.m. is a nasty snide hateful remark. The sort of remark that Tommy B. accuses those of a conservative nature would say.
I do not put my trust in the main stream media (ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC). I also do not fully trust Fox news. When I was assigned to the British Army (I was in the American Army) I heard an quote that went something like this ” When it comes to intelligence information, 60% of it as false, 35% as slightly possible and 5% as having some truth in it”. It is not the correct quote, but it is close.
That is how I view the news media today.

Working Dad never brings anything to the discussion. I based my comment on reading a plethora of his comments on many of these forums. I would say that the comment was a harsh yet accurate assessment. Not hateful in that I don’t know him enough to hate him.

But back to the theme here. Andy is spot on as to what should be more trusted as to news sources. I also think that many people automatically dismiss news they disagree with or dislike to easily.

Jim III, I would not ban opposing view points but please back them with reliable facts. I’m tired of people getting their news from the web and taking it for fact when the web doesn’t have to back it with checked out facts. Say what you want about network news but when they make a mistake they are called out on it. When President Trump said that the publics worst enemy is the network news and called it fake news that brought back what Hitler, Stalin and other dictators said about a free press. SCARRY

The biggest problem today with too many Americans is their total lack of critical thinking. I suspect that in school they were very good bubble students. If you ask them to explain their point of view in a clear and coherent manner, they don’t have a clue. But they sure do know how to fill in that oval.

Andrew I enjoyed Dales comments on your less than factual Facebook posts. Until you banned him you would go silent when proven wrong by facts. As working Dad said your hypocrisy and lack of integrity is obvious. Keep blocking those that out think you and remain mentally unchallenged. Typical liberal thought. Block those that disagree using facts.

Tommy B if you were on the receiving end of your 3:39 comment you would be having a hissy fit and demanding that Andrew ban whoever made that type of comment as hateful.
Your 10:31 comment about people dismissing news that they disagree with applies to you and a lot of liberal commentators on this site.
Fred I have never watched Breibart or Drudge.
Fact is I have been watching CNN this morning. It is on right now. They are talking about Paul Manafort and Gates and their indictment. The indictment is over Manafort and Gates hiding funds from when they were front men for the Ukraine. It happened quite a few years ago. Long before Manafort started working for Trump.
Listening to CNN they raised a interesting idea. The CNN commentators opined that the investigation could possibly end up ensnaring the Podesta Group in the same thing. I cannot keep with their views.. They are on a commercial break right now.
Isn’t the Podesta group part of the democrat party network . Podestya has strong ties to hilliary clinton.
Yes young liberals cannot formulate and articulate a rational reason for what they are protesting about.
One final thought this comment. A vote for President Trump was not really a vote for Trump. It was a vote against hilliary and her policies.

Fred, so far there has been no indictment for collusion with the Russians. You are jumping over the starting line.
The indictment is for Manafort and Gates for representing a foreign government and not telling the proper agencies that they were acting as agents and hiding the funds that they received for those services and not reporting the income from such activities. Those 2 did this a few years before and were no longer representing those foreign governments when they started to work on Donald Trumps’ presidential run.
John Podesta and the Podesta Group never worked for Donald Trump. They worked for hilliary clinton. John Podesta has always been a democrat. He was never a republican.
So far there is no evidence that President Trump has ties to Russia, however, there is a lot of evidence that the clinton’s have had a few dealings with the Russians. There is slick willies $500,00 speaker fee that received for a speech. Donations to the clinton foundation. Those are just 2 of the items that some of the media has been looking into. Yes one of those looking into the connections is CNN.
The connection that CNN was making that a republican running for president in 2016 started the dossier at the heart of the matter. When he got eliminated in the primaries, somehow the Podesta Group got a hold of the dossier and ran with it.
A lot of democrats that I have listening to n the past few days remind me of Baghdad Bob from Dessert Storm. He kept on saying that the forces Saddam were repelling the American forces and that they would not be able take Baghdad. He kept up those beliefs even when M-1 tanks were in Baghdad.

All those conspiracy theories trying to tie the Clintons to Russia have already been debunked, but the right keeps trying to bring them out again to take the spotlight off Trump.

What the heck does John Podesta have to do with anything? He wasn’t indicted today. It was confirmed last week that a right wing news outlet originally collaborated with Wikileaks to get that dossier. They actually admitted that. I think you are getting John Podesta mixed up with George Papadopoulos

Three people who worked for Trump’s campaign were indicted. The Administration is trying to downplay one of them as just being a volunteer, they only met with once, and nobody important. So why is Trump sitting with an unimportant volunteer at a meeting entitled “National Security Meeting” with Jeff Sessions?

***”White House press secretary Sanders again described former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos as a junior player on the campaign team, calling him a “member of a volunteer counsel that met one time over the course of a year.
She added that Papadopoulos “reached out and nothing happened beyond that. That shows one, his level of importance in the campaign and two, shows what little role he had within coordinating anything officially for the campaign.
As CNN previously highlighted, Trump tweeted a photo showing Papadopoulos seated at a table with Trump and Jeff Sessions under the headline, “National Security Meeting.”
blob:http://www.cnn.com/a242ab9c-a46c-4873-83d4-2a1e3d93c4d4 ***

Wake up. They are lying to you everyday and they think you are too dumb to figure it out. Are they correct in that assumption?

George Papadopoulos is cooperating with Mueller. Who else is cooperating? That’s what people in the White House need to be worried about. It appears that Donnie Dutch Boy’s finger will no longer hold back the water. Drip, drip, drip …… flood …… tsunami.

About The Author

Andrew Heller has been an enduringly popular newspaper columnist in Michigan for a long, long, long time. He wrote his first column for the Escanaba Daily Press way back in 1979. It was about his … Continue Reading

Come Heller High Water II is the smash hit follow-up to Come Heller High Water I. It includes everything from Andy's takes on modern life to conversations with his back home pal Moon Dimple, and much, much more.

Saving the World One Column at a Time is a bitingly funny look at the world through the eyes of this award-winning columnist. In it he takes on corporate crooks, Little League parents, tongue piercers, ketchup sinners and much, much more. A must-have for Heller fans.